It never even began for 60% of men

It never even began for 60% of men.

Attached: Untitled.png (1135x202, 30.3K)

It's estimated that 50% of women in their 20s will be alone and childless for life. This is coming from large financial institutions that make their money on these predictions. This falls in line with the historic record.

Men's biological purpose is to be the dumpster for bad genes so they can be filtered out every generation. Males of other species fight it out to decide who is the trash. In humans we have more civilised methods, but the principle remains. No point getting upset about your place in nature.

>implying women can't have bad genes

It gets worse when you realize that number is so low despite 99% of humans being born after year 0 AD, when all civilizations had monogamy and marriage

50% seems a bit extreme user, but I can believe that. Women no longer need men for survival/money and are free to pursue relationships amongst themselves and with the occasional chad

They can, but they still get to reproduce. The gene selection process takes twice as long because of this but it still occurs

And why exactly is that a problem?

Total bullshit.
All women have dick on speed dial

>Men's biological purpose is to be the dumpster for bad genes so they can be filtered out every generation
Cope. Women are literally closer to chimps and if it weren't for human males singlehandedly evolving us out of the jungle, women would still be flinging poop and presenting their swollen hindquarters to chimp alphas for a few bananas.

Attached: IMG_20220317_172610.jpg (1080x2049, 613.69K)

That has nothing to do with what I said, though? Of course women have bad genes too, but they are the bottleneck in reproduction so it costs more to delete each individual. That's why women are only deleted in the most extreme cases. Males are cheap, sperm is abundant, so the threshold for being useful is higher. For most males the best thing they can do for the health of the species is die out and take some bad genes with them.
This is also why male DNA is more variable, has more mutations, there are more genetic diseases and retards, but also more geniuses. Men are the sandbox that nature uses to play with DNA configuration, because there will be thousands of fuck-ups for every good combination, and it's better if those fuck-ups are carried by the sex that can die en masse without affecting the number of babies born.

>40% of men still get to reproduce during the most violent, chaotic , dangerous times with no healthcare , no modern medicine where life expectancy is less than 30
>Number slowly rises over time until
>During safest times in history , modern medicine and technology and literally ideal conditions , but thanks to women 60% of men are once again incels and the number's climbing
The cycle repeats itself

>Implying female selection is the same as natural selection
>Implying good genes remain constant throughout time despite changing environments
>Implying women select for good genes and not the loudest psychotic chimp available
Read up on peacock evolution and basic evolutionary biology yokel.

Just watcha lengthy interview demographics (as it largely pertains the global military situation right now).

Chinese foids are reproducing at 6 times lower than their mothers. The majority of Chinese men now will not have a partner, let alone reproduce.

Apparently U.S. demographics don't look as bad as this until earliest 2040.

If they think incels are fucked now, just wait until then.

you're talking about morgan stanley and these people aren't as smart or predictive as you think. Banking is a notoriously easy industry and yet the big banks (in america) still manage to go broke

>when all civilizations had monogamy and marriage
thats actually not true. Most societies had polygamy and marriage was just about as good as your ability to defend your wife / keep her in line. The whole stable marriages and families thing was a sign of civiliztional advancement.

>Chinese foids are reproducing at 6 times lower than their mothers
and this was actually what the ccp wanted...before
>Apparently U.S. demographics don't look as bad as this until earliest 2040.
the only thing the us has demographically is immigration they've been below replacement levels for a long time. They economy may keep growing but you're going to see a larger rise in wealth disparity and living standards.

>Implying female selection is the same as natural selection
Sexual selection is a sub-category of natural selection, yes. Also it's not easily separable from general selection pressures. When weirdos get bullied by other kids and as a result get less exposure to girls and fewer chances to practice social skills, is that sexual selection? It all merges into one big downward social pressure.

>Implying good genes remain constant throughout time despite changing environments.
No? Where did I imply that? Although success is a pretty universally recognisable state in any environment, even if it takes different genes to achieve it nowadays compared to more primitive societies.

>Implying women select for good genes and not the loudest psychotic chimp available.
If they select for bad, uncompetitive genes, their lineage goes extinct eventually along with their faulty selection mechanism. It's not meant to be perfect right away, it's a trial and error process that gradually improves/adapts to current environment. Imperfect selection is still better than mating indiscriminately with genetic trash.

He is correct, actually, but not for the reasons you envision.
Males have a higher mutational load and a greater propensity for methylation and unconditional expression of alleles via pituitary testosterone.


Evolution stops at reproduction. Ie, virtually all selection pressures guiding male evolution have to do with physiological and behavioral traits that potentiate reproductive success. Risk-seeking behavior is obviously not conducive to survival, but it is closely correlated with reproductive success, ergo it is selected for, with testosterone, dihydrotestosterone levels in serum rising, and pituitary testosterone acting on the orbitofrontal cortex and the amygdala.


Women carry two x sex determination chromosomes. In the case of mutation of a gene, a sequence, a cleavage site, anything really, the DNA incorporates the backup x chromosome. That's why women are considerably less susceptible to many types of cancer. Moreover, estradiol and estriol inhibits the rates of many types of cancers, and only potentiates very few types of cancers. It has to do with how the steroid hormones affect cell mitosis and apoptosis in the relevant tissue.

Women are the bottleneck of reproduction. Their selection pressures are extremely limited, and their reproductive success is not threatened, due to our species' asymmetrical mating strategies. That's why women never had the selection pressures to evolve more neocortical synapses, myelin axons (white matter), thicker amygdala lining, a bigger V2 and V4 visual cortices, and bigger prefrontal cortex, and a bigger tool use region in the parietal lobe, to name a few regions and nuclei. Better spatial intelligence doesn't affect their reproductive success whatsoever, better abstract thinking, gratification deferral, multilateral decision-making, etc, don't affect their reproductive success whatsoever.
Whereas, with men, reproductive success is contingent on competition and competence. Traits that are detrimental to all other aspects are selected for as long as they are conducive to reproduction.
Finally, when a woman carries bad genes, she can replicate them a limited number of times. They cannot easily propagate. Whereas, men can replicate their genes a hypothetical infinite number of times. That's of course a hypothetical, since our major histocompatibility complex does a good job at filtering out bad fits for reproduction in general.

Another thing. Women employ preselection. They crowdsource mate selection to an extent.


Remember, evolution has nothing to do with genes any conscious observer considers good. It's all about the genes that facilitate and potentiate reproductive success.
If we'd let our mating strategies be dictated by nature, we'd never have managed to created structured societies. We consciously pivoted to socially-enforced monogamous practices, because that system is the most optimal for humans in our environment. We value intelligence, competence, prosocial behavior, conscientiousness, stability. Evolution doesn't, reproductive success is the name of the game.

Why would that matter when all that matters is looks for making women interested? Sure he might make them run away when he talks but they will avoid him if he is unattractive and socially competent.

Because it's not true. Women care about general competence and achievements, looks being somewhat important, but secondary. Men are the ones primarily attracted to youth and fertility (looks) and don't give a shit about much else in a woman.
I mean, just look at men. Most are so hideous there's no way it's a result of looks-based selection. There's a reason women are more pleasant to look at for both sexes, and are put to work in customer facing roles. They've been selected for their looks more.

Basically you're critizising that women aren't perfect beings and at the same time expect them to pick up worthless trash (You).
Make up your mind, little incel.

And no, I'm not a "roastie".

It's rare to have a post here that actually makes this much sense.
Too bad it will be lost on most of the idiots on here.

You misunderstand--the 60% of failson men that never reproduced aren't your ancestors. You have Neanderchad's blood in your veins right now.

You guys are missing the point. Women do not have children by multiple partners. That is rare. She is going to have one man's child and that is the man she settles with. The rest of women will have no children. This idea that you think Chad is spreading his genes to all women in 100 miles radius is fucking retarded and not consistent with reality. What is more than likely going to happen? Chad isn't going to have children. Why would he bear that responsibility? Would you if you were in his situation? You can just have a good time will into your 40s. The guy that is reproducing is the beta with money and he will have children with a roastie who's eggs are nearly all dead. Leading to an increase in autism and down syndromes and a host of other issues. Unironically, hookup culture has fucked the human species genetically. Quit putting women on some pedestal as if they are bettering our species. You know that is bullshit.